Kris Benson and Anna Benson, overhyped sports power couple of all overhyped sports power couples, have decided that this is it: after 13 years of marriage, it’s divorce time.
Anna gave an interview to Fox News in which she acknowledged she served Kris with divorce papers in March after finding out about his infidelity. Kris, now a money manager, allegedly slept with one of his wife’s friends who he was supposed to be giving financial advice.
“She and Kris are both denying the affair, saying it was just ‘inappropriate talk,’” said Benson. “But I picked up his iPad and and I hit the Facebook button and looked at his inbox messages, and there were all of these sexy messages between them. And you just don’t talk with somebody like that that you’re not having sex with.” ...
Benson, who last pitched for Arizona in 2010, has been inextricably tied to and overshadowed by his bombastic wife throughout his career. (We couldn’t even be bothered to find a photo of him for this post.) In Pittsburgh, she told a magazine that they had had sex in the stadium parking lot, and wanted to try it outside every ballpark in the majors. In New York, she told Howard Stern that if he cheated on her, she’d sleep with all his Mets teammates. (Somewhere, Cliff Floyd wonders what the statute of limitations on that promise was.) And with Benson’s performance never quite living up to expectations, more than one team decided the package deal of Kris and Anna was more trouble than it was worth.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Except that by the same principle people can be sexually jealous through reason and/or deliberation.
Why would what you wrote in #78 - which deals with capital-p Puritans - disqualify use of small-p "puritanical" (which is the only way I've used it)?
I'll take your word for it.
So I take it you're interested in the question of why monogamous sex is emotionally important to people? Is that kind of what you're getting at? I'm not sure you're going to find a satisfactory answer to that question outside of great literature or psychology, and probably not in a pithy post on a baseball discussion board. While I'm sympathetic to what I think is your point, monogamy is far too complicated a question to dismiss those who favor the concept as "puritanical."
But to me the question is, would you be angrier to find out that she had been "spending her evenings reading romantic poetry in the arms of another man", or "spending her evenings reading romantic poetry in the arms of another man and having sex with him"?
I don't see why that's *the* question, but sure I would be. I'd also be angrier than if she were just having sex with him. It indicates another level of intimacy and another level of betrayal of trust. Would the sexual part of the relationship be a bigger violation than the non-sexual part? Thankfully I don't know, but either one on its own would be a dealbreaker, just as it would be for her if I did it.
That's an easy position to take on an anonymous internet site. But unless it actually happened to you in real life, I am going to write it off as internet grandstanding.
Well, sort of. I understand why it's important, but what I'm not sure I understand is why it's important above all else (for most people in most circumstances).
You're probably right that it's unduly dismissive. From here on out, I take back my use of the word.
Ironically, I think that, for most people who would find themselves in an intimate-but-not-sexual relationship like the one you outline, the relationship would quite likely have remained sexless out of respect for the participants' significant others. Sure, in some cases there might be physical barriers, and in some the two people might just not be sexually attracted. But I've actually been in a situation sort of like that, where I didn't pursue sex because I didn't want to cheat on my girlfriend at the time. Maybe it would have happened or maybe not if I had, but either way it seemed noble to me then.
At any rate, I'm not so sure that you and I are so far apart on how we view things. We both agree that there are betrayals equal to or surpassing sexual infidelity; the rest is just ironing out the details of what is exactly how bad.
Exactly. With Lenny Dykstra out of business I don't know where to turn.
I would disagree that difficulty with infidelity has anything to do with marriage, though. It simply has to do with trust and intimacy.
That's an easy position to take on an anonymous internet site. But unless it actually happened to you in real life, I am going to write it off as internet grandstanding.
I usually think you're on the ball more than just about anyone here, Srul; but I think we can take Brian C at his word, I know other people who would feel the same. I would almost wonder if it's generational, I'd put Brian C at about 36, and I think people older and people younger don't have that same death-grip on trust issues. I almost think it has to do with the onset of VM, email, etc. from absolutely nowhere within our dating and marrying ages. I'd have to think more about it.
As far as monogamy, the idea that it isn't the end-all, be-all isn't new. At the same time, I've know a lot of poly people and poly relationships. Everyone always says they work, and I think the number is about 1 in 100, and this is from witnessing firsthand. I just haven't seen it.
In fairness to Ms. Benson, those ads appear to pre-date this thread. I suspect excessive discussion of comic books, professional wrestling and video games has caused BBTF to be targeted.
i never liked her non-charity comments before, but if he did cheat on her and they weren't in an open marriage, the venom shouldn't be spewed in her direction.
Good guess! Turned 34 a couple months ago.
Holy Jesus, I'm 34.
It beats the Flirt ads on the Creamer thread.
People say they feel that way. Like people say how they would react as regards any number of things, from being in a hold up to meeting someone famous, and on and on. They younger they are, the more sure they are as to how they would react.
Until it actually happens to you, you don't know. Things you think are not important to you in a hypothetical situation, come much more clearly into focus when it is your own flesh you smell burning.
FWIW, I think you're right, and that you have every reason to be skeptical.
That said, if I were held up, I'd pretend that I was terrified by screaming like a little girl before disarming the robber with a precisely placed karate kick when he was distracted. And if I met someone famous, I'd pull down my pants, show them my junk, and then get a quick photo of their reaction that I would then Tweet.
This is a hilarious use of the word "biology". In case anyone's wondering, there has yet to be identified a biological process that makes men not want to spend money on the kids of other people.
I think you're overstating the case here. If you went up to 100 biologists and asked them to give you the most likely evolutionary basis for sexual jealousy, you'd probably get 99 responses along these lines. It would be trivial to construct a model in which jealousy pays off, just like it would be trivial to construct a model in which people still had an incentive to sow some wild oats, even while remaining jealous.
Porn. It's mostly internet porn.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main